Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26
    LWP
    LWP is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,247
    Quote Originally Posted by nOOky View Post
    This young lady did a horrible thing, and apparently they decided she was cognizant enough despite her own issues to encourage him to kill himself.
    She did do a horrible thing and I have zero problem with her being held accountable. I was just questioning if the ruling was stretching the boundaries of what classifies an action as manslaughter in this situation.
    Crusty old farts are people too.
    - 10ae1203

  2. #27
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    47,805
    Quote Originally Posted by LWP View Post
    She did do a horrible thing and I have zero problem with her being held accountable. I was just questioning if the ruling was stretching the boundaries of what classifies an action as manslaughter in this situation.
    you kill a cyclist or pedestrian while driving and texting you get manslaughter.
    If your actions cause someone to die, that is the typical charge. Typically it doesn't need intent. You don't intend to kill someone, you are just negligent. I think she could have been charged with worse as her intent was clearly for him to die.
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  3. #28
    LWP
    LWP is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,247
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    you kill a cyclist or pedestrian while driving and texting you get manslaughter.
    If your actions cause someone to die, that is the typical charge. Typically it doesn't need intent. You don't intend to kill someone, you are just negligent. I think she could have been charged with worse as her intent was clearly for him to die.
    But unsafe driving causing a death isn't really the same, from my viewpoint, as suggesting to someone that they do something that could be harmful. When you tell somebody to do something, they have the option of not doing it. When you get hit from behind by a car, you had no personal choice in the matter. I tell people, particularly at work, to go f**k themselves on a fairly regular basis. But if somebody actually tries to do so after I tell them to and manages to die in the process, I would feel like it was a great miscarriage of justice to charge me with manslaughter. Again, I'm not arguing the girl is innocent. I'm just questioning whether the words we say should be considered chargeable as an action directly causing the death of another person. I can only think of one situation where that sits well with me, and that's when the person being influenced has no ability to recognize that what they're being told to do could cause them harm.
    Crusty old farts are people too.
    - 10ae1203

  4. #29
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    47,805
    Quote Originally Posted by LWP View Post
    But unsafe driving causing a death isn't really the same, from my viewpoint, as suggesting to someone that they do something that could be harmful. When you tell somebody to do something, they have the option of not doing it. When you get hit from behind by a car, you had no personal choice in the matter. I tell people, particularly at work, to go f**k themselves on a fairly regular basis. But if somebody actually tries to do so after I tell them to and manages to die in the process, I would feel like it was a great miscarriage of justice to charge me with manslaughter. Again, I'm not arguing the girl is innocent. I'm just questioning whether the words we say should be considered chargeable as an action directly causing the death of another person. I can only think of one situation where that sits well with me, and that's when the person being influenced has no ability to recognize that what they're being told to do could cause them harm.
    I understand your point. What sealed the deal for her was when the victim changed his mind, and wanted to live, she talked him back into dying and then listened to him die without trying to help.
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by LWP View Post
    I tell people, particularly at work, to go f**k themselves on a fairly regular basis. But if somebody actually tries to do so after I tell them to and manages to die in the process, I would feel like it was a great miscarriage of justice to charge me with manslaughter.
    Do have every reason to believe your co-workers will actually do that but you say it anyway? And you'd continue once you see they are actually going to die? If so we'll have to disagree on your guild being miscarriage of justice. And if no then your analogy is n/a because it's not at all the same circumstances.

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    I understand your point. What sealed the deal for her was when the victim changed his mind, and wanted to live, she talked him back into dying and then listened to him die without trying to help.
    The victim did have a choice to not get back into that vehicle, she did not hold him at gunpoint so for that I don't believe she should have been convicted of a crime. HOWEVER, not seeking help knowing somebody is hurt and dying, as you stated, is the clincher for me that she is guilty.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  7. #32
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    you kill a cyclist or pedestrian while driving and texting you get manslaughter.
    If your actions cause someone to die, that is the typical charge. Typically it doesn't need intent. You don't intend to kill someone, you are just negligent. I think she could have been charged with worse as her intent was clearly for him to die.
    Yeah, but the difference is that no one ran the guy over with a car while texting. The cyclist who gets killed that way has no control over the situation. This guy did. No one pushed him into a car filled with exhaust and locked the door. He did it to himself. He had control over the situation and made a choice that cost him his life.

    Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

  8. #33
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by LWP View Post
    I tell people, particularly at work, to go f**k themselves on a fairly regular basis. But if somebody actually tries to do so after I tell them to and manages to die in the process, I would feel like it was a great miscarriage of justice to charge me with manslaughter.
    F**king oneself isn't illegal. So telling someone to masturbate isn't telling them to do anything wrong.

    Your analogy makes no sense in regards to this case. Perhaps if you tell someone to go F' themselves, and they did so, and strangely died in the process, AND while they were dying you stood by and watched but did nothing. Not even dialing 911.... you'd probably be in trouble too.

    Of course that's not remotely what happened here.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    The victim did have a choice to not get back into that vehicle, she did not hold him at gunpoint so for that I don't believe she should have been convicted of a crime. HOWEVER, not seeking help knowing somebody is hurt and dying, as you stated, is the clincher for me that she is guilty.
    To me the clincher is that she had every reason to believe death would be the outcome yet kept going.
    There's a big difference between telling someone of the street to jump off a bridge and telling that to someone you received a suicide note from, is known to suffer from depression, and is perched on top of a bridge.

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    To me the clincher is that she had every reason to believe death would be the outcome yet kept going.
    There's a big difference between telling someone of the street to jump off a bridge and telling that to someone you received a suicide note from, is known to suffer from depression, and is perched on top of a bridge.
    Agree, I think it was horrible of her. I just couldn't imagine doing that. But was it manslaughter (the texting)? or Morally wrong? Was she even in the right mind to truly understand the consequences?

    From the link in the OP:

    Earlier in the trial, a psychiatrist testified that Carter was delusional after becoming "involuntarily intoxicated" by antidepressants. She was "unable to form intent" after switching to a new prescription drug months before Roy's suicide, and she even texted his phone for weeks after he died, the psychiatrist testified.
    And will this be a slippery slope for people who do not seek medical attention for depressed people? What about hospitals that release a depressed patient and that patient then commits suicide?

    From the same link:

    Still, this verdict is concerning because it reflects a judicial willingness to expand legal liability for another person's suicide, an act which by definition is a completely independent choice," he said. "Historically, suicide has been considered a superseding act which breaks the chain of legal causation."
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45
    I tend to only lurk in these threads, but curious. If someone is standing on the edge of a 6 story building, too scared to jump to his death, should the people who yell "JUMP" be charged with manslaughter after he jumps?

  12. #37
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Bike N Gear View Post
    I tend to only lurk in these threads, but curious. If someone is standing on the edge of a 6 story building, too scared to jump to his death, should the people who yell "JUMP" be charged with manslaughter after he jumps?
    Don't forget to add... that after the person jumps, they're still alive. While lying there slowly dying and the people who yelled jump stand there doing nothing and watch him die.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Don't forget to add... that after the person jumps, they're still alive. While lying there slowly dying and the people who yelled jump stand there doing nothing and watch him die.
    Morally it's reprehensible, but is it a crime?
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45
    What about the people who just stood there with their cellphones recording the jump, but didn't do anything?

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Here is a good read on the Law vs Morals:

    Michelle Carter Did Not Kill Conrad Roy With a Text - Michelle Carter Involuntary Manslaughter Reaction

    Communicating via text and electronic forms of communication is a normal part of modern life, and arguably one problem is that our laws have not caught up. It’s hard to watch the Carter case — or the Drew case, or the Ravi case — and not conclude that these people who did such awful things shouldn’t be guilty of something. But the impulse to punish bad behavior doesn’t mean they should be guilty of just about anything. Even as Carter seems like a young woman without a moral compass, a depraved and cruel person who acted appallingly and should certainly find herself legally penalized for something, manslaughter seems to be a step too far. Holding someone legally responsible for another’s suicide — not criminalizing assisting someone with suicide or bullying them or harassing them, but holding them primarily accountable for the death itself — criminalizes speech that, while bad, should not be illegal. If we want to criminalize behavior like Carter’s (or Drew’s or Ravi’s), our legislatures should take the time to craft careful new criminal codes that fold in our modern, more virtually connected reality. But prosecutors shouldn’t shoehorn charges where they don’t really fit and judges shouldn’t compromise our robust First Amendment freedoms even in difficult, ugly cases.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  16. #41
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,544
    Quote Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    Morally it's reprehensible, but is it a crime?
    A jury in this instance said yes.


    This is one of those extreme IRL cases of the intersection of ethics and law....And who you get in a room determines what consensus you'll get.
    "‘Photograph me on horseback,’ wrote Teddy Roosevelt in 1908. ‘Tennis, no. And golf is fatal.’ "

  17. #42
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    A jury in this instance said yes.


    This is one of those extreme IRL cases of the intersection of ethics and law....And who you get in a room determines what consensus you'll get.
    Actually it was just a judge. She waived her right to a jury trial.
    Which was probably a really dumb idea.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Actually it was just a judge. She waived her right to a jury trial.
    Which was probably a really dumb idea.
    I could see why the defense would want that (in the beginning of the trial anyways) because they would be afraid of the jury considering her acts as horrific and therefore illegal. Whereas a judge would presumably be more versed in the law and therefore would consider suicide as self inflicted and her not being responsible.

    There seems to be some legal experts that disagree with the judge so I wonder if there will be appeals.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  19. #44
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    I could see why the defense would want that (in the beginning of the trial anyways) because they would be afraid of the jury considering her acts as horrific and therefore illegal. Whereas a judge would presumably be more versed in the law and therefore would consider suicide as self inflicted and her not being responsible.

    There seems to be some legal experts that disagree with the judge so I wonder if there will be appeals.
    But with a Jury, you only need to gain the sympathy and doubt of one juror. This case seems pretty ripe for creating that doubt.

    I'm sure there will be an appeal.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  20. #45
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,544
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Actually it was just a judge. She waived her right to a jury trial.
    Which was probably a really dumb idea.
    Derp, read over that part.
    "‘Photograph me on horseback,’ wrote Teddy Roosevelt in 1908. ‘Tennis, no. And golf is fatal.’ "

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    But with a Jury, you only need to gain the sympathy and doubt of one juror. This case seems pretty ripe for creating that doubt.

    I'm sure there will be an appeal.
    True enough.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Interesting. Thanks for bringing that up.

    I think with that, a person actually has to have a hand in the killing, not just texts (or words) to encourage suicide.

    The Russian Roulette example was a modified game where each pointed the at the other. To me, the deceased person had volunteered to play the game knowing the risks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Malone

    The case is often used to exemplify depraved-heart murder - that is, cases where there is such recklessness and indifference to life and risk of death as to fulfill the mens rea for murder despite the fact that the killing of the specific victim was unintentional.[3] It has not yet been established whether simply participating in a game of Russian roulette in which another participant kills himself by his own hand could constitute manslaughter or some lesser form of conspiracy or homicide for others involved who survived.
    One could really go off the deep end blaming others for their own actions that cause death, such as cliff diving or base jumping, if that person talked the other into doing the dangerous actions.
    Last edited by love4himies; 6 Days Ago at 09:58 AM.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  23. #48
    Master debator.
    Reputation: nOOky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,104
    I think a couple of things are still getting confused with all the analogies. What we have here is a person that took advantage of an emotionally dis-advantaged person, suffering from depression, possibly mentally ill herself, but yet aware enough to do what she did. Depression is a mental disorder at the very least. While that may seem okay to some of you, there is all sorts of history of people taking advantage of people in emotional distress, and being prosecuted for it. Very similar to talking an emotionally disturbed or mentally ill person into having sex with you, we'd all agree that is wrong right? How about talking an older couple out of their savings because they are confused and trusting, also horrible right? Apparently the jury agrees.

    The other aspect is standing around and watching someone die, which usually people are not prosecuted for because if you are not trained and you don't feel comfortable administering first aid you don't have to by law.

    There is a lot of assuming going on here that the guy was stable enough that he could have chosen what to do and not listened to her, but he was mentally unstable enough to do what she suggested. He was not thinking like most of us are right now, he was in a dark place where he didn't see a way out, and she did not try to help, she tried to hasten his suicide.
    "I felt bad because I couldn't wheelie; until I met a man with no bicycle"

  24. #49
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: love4himies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by nOOky View Post
    I think a couple of things are still getting confused with all the analogies. What we have here is a person that took advantage of an emotionally dis-advantaged person, suffering from depression, possibly mentally ill herself, but yet aware enough to do what she did. Depression is a mental disorder at the very least. While that may seem okay to some of you, there is all sorts of history of people taking advantage of people in emotional distress, and being prosecuted for it. Very similar to talking an emotionally disturbed or mentally ill person into having sex with you, we'd all agree that is wrong right? How about talking an older couple out of their savings because they are confused and trusting, also horrible right? Apparently the jury agrees.

    The other aspect is standing around and watching someone die, which usually people are not prosecuted for because if you are not trained and you don't feel comfortable administering first aid you don't have to by law.

    There is a lot of assuming going on here that the guy was stable enough that he could have chosen what to do and not listened to her, but he was mentally unstable enough to do what she suggested. He was not thinking like most of us are right now, he was in a dark place where he didn't see a way out, and she did not try to help, she tried to hasten his suicide.
    I think we all agree it was morally wrong, whether it is a criminal offence or not is different.

    Talking somebody into sex is a question of "consent" and if that person was able (in the right mind) to give "consent". If not, then it's rape. BUT you are the one that is committing the illegal action.

    Is it illegal to talk somebody into suicide? That's the question. I, personally, think the law needs to change to catch up to the computer age. I think there needs to be laws in which excessive actions such as bullying on line causing somebody to kill themselves needs to be very clear.

    As for taking money from an elderly person who may have dementia, it is illegal if it is gotten under fraudulent means, but not illegal if it is gotten under honest conditions.

    From the judge:

    "This court has found that Carter's actions and failure to act where it was her self-created duty to Roy since she put him in that toxic environment constituted reckless conduct," the judge said. "The court finds that the conduct caused the death of Mr. Roy."
    Did she really put him into that toxic environment? Or has this been a toxic environment (mental state) that he's been in for some time. He has a history of attempted suicides.

    Michelle Carter Did Not Kill Conrad Roy With a Text - Michelle Carter Involuntary Manslaughter Reaction

    Carter’s defense team emphasized that she initially encouraged Roy to get help and Roy himself had attempted suicide before — Carter didn’t introduce the idea, even as she eventually promoted it and even as she pushed him to complete his suicide when he hesitated. All of that makes this less a clear-cut case of one person haranguing the other into ending their own life, even as it’s hard to interpret Carter’s chilling messages as reflecting anything other than her desire for Roy to die by his own hand.

    But the ugliness of this particular case doesn’t negate the underlying principle: that to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to have actually killed someone, and words don’t kill people. Roy was a vulnerable young man with a history of suicide attempts. And speech, even bad speech, is widely protected by the First Amendment.
    If she thought that Roy was mentally tortured due to his depression, she may have thought it was the right thing for Roy to do to relieve his demons. Like a partner supporting suicide for a terminally ill person.

    Another question that was raised at the trial was her mental condition. Apparently she was taking antidepressant drugs making her delusional.
    While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. - Stephen R. Covey.

  25. #50
    LWP
    LWP is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,247
    Quote Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    But the ugliness of this particular case doesn’t negate the underlying principle: that to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to have actually killed someone, and words don’t kill people.
    This is what I was getting at. I used a bad analogy but I'm not sure there's a good analogy for this one. I agree 100% that what she did was morally reprehensible and maybe it was illegal on some level (I don't have much in the way of legal knowledge outside of the general stuff everybody knows) but to me it doesn't fit the definition of manslaughter as I understand it. That's why I was asking. Because maybe the way I understand it is incorrect.
    Crusty old farts are people too.
    - 10ae1203

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Guilty until proven guilty
    By rgojr2001 in forum The Doping Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-22-2009, 06:04 AM
  2. Murat Kurnaz: guilty of not being guilty.
    By JoeDaddio in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 04-03-2008, 11:35 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-23-2006, 08:44 PM
  4. Should I feel guilty for not feeling guilty?
    By Cory in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-25-2005, 12:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •